Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?
On Dec 31, 2007 11:36 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > C = Allows distribution without full license text
>
> I am not able to see C as a reasonable requirement
Fair enough. I've made a note of that in the following article:
http://inamidst.com/stuff/eiffel/
- Why the Eiffel Forum License?
Which I've just been writing about why, if you don't bother taking
column C into account, the rather obscure but awesome Eiffel Forum
License comes out on top.
Note that the EFL v.2 is OSI and FSF approved, and GPL compatible. And
best of all, for my direct needs, it's DFSG compliant and meets
everything apart from column C. Seems like a winner, unless anyone can
suggest why not!
> Are we sure that B is N for the 3-clause BSD license and for
> the Expat/MIT license?
Yes, there is no text in those licenses which requires that all
copyright notices within the package they apply to are retained and
preserved.
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001398.php
> http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html
> http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
> http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/google
Well at least you're not forced to use Google Mail.
Not yet, anyway.
(Muahahaha!)
--
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Reply to: